For those not familiar with this test developed by cartoonist Allison Bechdel, here's an explanation:

1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man

Click to expand...

Star Trek Into Darkness only passed 1 of the 3 tests, and was panned by many of the ladies who use the site that the test is featured at:

Reicheru said:
Two named female characters: Uhura and Dr. Marcus. They are very occassionally on screen together but do not interact in any way. No women share any dialogue or interaction at any point in the film.
Message posted on 2013-05-09 22:13:53

AJ said:
Very disappointing! They also add a very contrived, pointless and, frankly, just damn awkward getting-the-new-female-character-into-her-underwear scene.. I assume for the benefit of the trailer.
Message posted on 2013-05-10 01:12:51

rasputintx said:
Not gonna lie - I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. But *wow* does it ever fail this test! The only time you have two female characters talk to each other is when the naked twin alien women Kirk is in bed with ask each other if he's really going to leave them to answer his phone. Total fail!

There is no point, Chapel has nothing to do with the Bechdel test. I'm just adding that while not on screen she is one woman that Carol Marcus talks about but the point of her is that she is a past hookup of Kirk's.

Hopefully they will interact in the next one. Of the two women, I feel like they kind of gave the shaft to Carol. I know a lot of people try to spin it like she did something epic in the story or that she played an integral role, but she didn't do much to stand out, besides take her clothes off. Even the media is only focusing on that, not how smart she is. Even when she saved Bones, it wasn't that amazing. Everyone was saving someone at some point.

The only people integral to the story are Kirk and Spock. Everything else is just fluffy stuff window dressing for Kirk and Spock. That includes Bone's bitching about things, Uhura kissing Spock, Marcus undoing torpedoes, Scotty faffing about..

Passing the Bechdel test doesn't make a movie good or feminist friendly, failing it doesn't make it bad, or misogynist. It's a curiosity at most.

The audience voted with their wallets. They wanted the original cast. Mostly dudes. Women are few and in supporting roles only. If they had a problem with that, they should have supported the spin-offs.

The fact that people here immediately conflate "villainess" with "seductress" shows exactly why there's merit in topics like this. The assumption is women will use their "wiles" to get what they want, that even as antagonists they're going to use sex to get what they want as opposed to all the ways a male character would.

I was bothered in both films by the fact that Uhura is defined primarily in terms of her being Spock's girlfriend and he she reacts to his suffering and needs. I'm happy to see the character being given more to do and annoyed that it's doing something so tired and expected.

Spock had always been defined primarily in terms of him being the nerdy friend of hero (same goes for McCoy), and yet he should be a protagonist as much as Kirk is. hell, you even have Spock prime telling him that Kirk would "define" him. But I don't see people complaining about Spock and McCoy getting reduced to nothing more than the best friends of hero.
-------

Uhura and Carol have a tiny interaction, actually.
When Kirk and Scotty take Carol to sickbay, Uhura is there trying to help her and whispers something to her (maybe she was trying to comfort her)
tiny but it's there.

The only people integral to the story are Kirk and Spock. Everything else is just fluffy stuff window dressing for Kirk and Spock. That includes Bone's bitching about things, Uhura kissing Spock, Marcus undoing torpedoes, Scotty faffing about..

It's Kirk and Spock vs their Enemy. And probably will be next movie.

Click to expand...

This. And it has been true since the beginning (with TOS). I see no reason whatsoever that the filmmakers, whomever they might be, should be under any obligation to do anything differently. If they want to, fine. Even better if it actually works as entertainment. But as an obligation? No.

Commercial entertainment is under no obligation to conform to any particular set of characteristics that self-appointed guardians of "the way things ought to be" have deemed necessary. Such entertainment should only try to meet those expectations if it is an organic element of the thing (movie, TV programme, song, painting, sculpture…etc.) they are producing. People are free, of course, to voice their disappointment if the result doesn't meet their expectations. They have no right, however, to expect satisfaction.

And failing to meet any of those arbitrary sets of standards does not automatically mean that the entertainers hate/don't understand whatever cause they "failed" to properly reflect in their work in a manner sufficient to please the "guardians". That is a specious assumption and does little to advance the cause in question.